Sunday, February 8, 2009

Don't take a shower...

...until after you read this. The Review-Journal's Corey Levitan goes inside an aspect of the Las Vegas porn business in a way that is absolutely shocking for a family newspaper. I am no prude, really, and it's a very interesting, enlightening and entertaining story. But. Such explicit discussions of this type really do NOT belong in this venue. A cover story of CityLife or Las Vegas Weekly, maybe. But the family paper? Really?

What's more, I've got to wonder of the newspaper has the same decency standards for its website as it does for its print product. There's a video that goes with Corey's story online that actually shows some explicit imagery, too. See?


Wow. This is not material that the newspaper would publish in print, so I wonder why they'd show it on the Internet. Of course, these are the kinds of questions that only get asked in newsrooms where the Web is taken seriously, so I'm not surprised they've never been broached.

8 comments:

R-J Guy said...

HAHAHAHA...you thought people like Sherm and Mitch actually thought such things through!!! HAHAHAHA. Boy, that's a good one.

Anonymous said...

Considering that Sherm is such a prude that he actually rebuked the editor of the LV Business Press for allowing the acronym "WTF?" into print, I'm doubly surprised.

David McKee

Gregory Zephyr said...

What the heck is a "family" newspaper, Steve? Does that mean it should be owned by Disney? Should it ban ads for R-rated movies? Skip the news articles about serial murders and rapes and molestation? Sure this is a puff piece but how is this any different than puff pieces on what it's like to work in a brothel or be a stripper?

THE STRIP PODCAST said...

hi gregory. i'm not opposed to discussions of sexuality in the news, of course, and there was a time when the mention of being gay was considered contrary to what was acceptable in a family newspaper. But this was really graphic. it's not the sort of detail that most major papers would view as fitting their standards, which would be to say that it's OK for children to read. It was a gut reaction.

And the bare-bottomed imagery on the Web? Wow. That's just completely out of bounds for a mainstream media publication. It calls into question whether anyone over there has thought about online decency standards at all. Of course, the answer is no.

Anonymous said...

Yowza. I hadn't seen the video. For the first time in ages, I bought the newspaper yesterday. I was shocked that the story jumped to a spot facing the page for teens. Photo included.

Anonymous said...

Indeed, this is extending (heh) the rights of free press
to an unacceptable level. This might easily fall into the
"news we don't need" category... that offered from yet
another "non-prude" , as well.

Mark said...

My biggest problem is less with the story and more with the billboards that this company places all over the valley. "Get Tugged for $500" is not going to do much to keep families in the area. I can't wait for my kids to get older and start asking about those gems. Geez. I'm far from a prude, but how about some class for a change, Porn creeps?

Anonymous said...

The cum rag at the end is a nasty touch...